The Delhi High Court ruled that a consensual relationship cannot be rebranded as non-consensual solely because marriage did not occur. The Court held that a breach of promise is not the same as a false promise made to induce consent.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of a man under Section 376 IPC, acquitting him of rape charges that were originally based on allegations of a false promise of marriage. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, delivering the verdict in CRL.A. 637/2016, held that the prosecution failed to prove that a misconception of fact vitiated the woman’s consent for the physical relationship.
The ruling overturns the May 4, 2016 judgment of the Sessions Court, which had convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment on May 14, 2016.
Background of the Case
The case originated from FIR No. 214/2012 at P.S. Sunlight Colony, filed on June 4, 2012. According to the prosecutrix, the accused had been a tenant at her residence since November 2011. She alleged:
- He proposed marriage in January 2012.
- On February 9, 2012, he took her to a guest house in Sarai Kale Khan and had sexual intercourse “against her wishes”, assuring her he would marry her.
- She claimed this continued multiple times until May 2012, when he refused to marry her.
The Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 376 and 420 IPC.
Prosecution Evidence
1. Testimony of the Prosecutrix
She stated that she resisted the first sexual act but submitted based on his repeated promise to marry. She further alleged multiple encounters at the guest house and the appellant’s vehicle until he declined marriage due to financial reasons.
2. Maternal Uncle
The uncle testified that he attempted to mediate when the appellant allegedly refused marriage, even sending him Rs. 10,000. However, during cross-examination, he denied that the appellant had admitted to any physical relationship in his presence—an inconsistency that later became critical.
3. Mother’s Statement
She claimed the appellant told her he had merely “used” her daughter and no longer wished to marry.
4. Medical & Forensic Evidence
- The MLC noted a torn hymen but no injuries, suggesting force.
- FSL reports found no semen on the prosecutrix’s samples or the appellant’s clothing.
- The High Court held that this evidence was inconclusive regarding forcible intercourse.
Appellant’s Defence
In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant denied any sexual relationship or promise of marriage. He claimed:
- The prosecutrix’s mother pressured him to marry her.
- He occasionally gave the prosecutrix a lift from her dance classes.
- It was the prosecutrix who proposed marriage, and he asked her to speak to his parents.
- After refusing marriage, he was allegedly falsely implicated.
High Court’s Analysis
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri examined the evidence on record and observed that several circumstances created substantial doubt about the prosecution’s case. The Court noted an unexplained gap between the first alleged incident on February 9, 2012, and the filing of the complaint in June 2012. This delay, according to the Court, weakened the allegation that the prosecutrix had been subjected to non-consensual sexual intercourse.
The judge also emphasized that the prosecutrix’s own testimony demonstrated that she and the appellant continued to maintain a close and voluntary association for several months, during which the physical relationship allegedly occurred repeatedly.
Further, the Court found inconsistencies in the maternal uncle, particularly regarding whether the appellant had ever admitted to having a physical relationship with the prosecutrix. This contradiction, the Court held, was significant and affected the reliability of the prosecution’s version.
Additionally, the medical and forensic evidence did not corroborate the allegation of force; the MLC showed no external or internal injuries, and the FSL reports found no semen on the samples taken from either party. In the Court’s view, the absence of such corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution’s narrative.
The judgment clarified the essential distinction between:
- A false promise to marry (where intent to deceive exists from the beginning), and
- A mere breach of promise (where circumstances change later).
Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025), the Court reiterated:
- Consent obtained on a genuinely intended promise cannot be retroactively treated as invalid just because the relationship fails.
- Only when the promise is false from inception can consent be considered vitiated by a misconception of fact.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove any initial intention to deceive.
Concluding that the prosecution did not establish lack of consent or deception, the Delhi High Court ruled:
“This Court is not persuaded to hold that the prosecution has proved that the physical relationship, if any, was without her consent or that her consent stood vitiated.”
The Court acquitted the appellant, cancelled his personal bond, and discharged his surety.
Case Title:
MAHINDER SONI versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
CRL.A. 637/2016
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Fake Rape
